memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Memory Alpha:Files for deletion
Image:Old cestus3.jpg ;Image:Old cestus3.jpg: Near duplicate of Image:Cestus III.jpg, which has a better title and is already linked to its "remastered" counterpart. Delete this page, but eventually re-upload under the other title if considered necessary. -- Cid Highwind 09:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC) *'Delete', and I see absolutely no reason to upload the old image under the new name. --OuroborosCobra talk 12:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC) USS Pegasus duplicate ;Image:320x240-1-.jpg Near duplicate, but lower size and poorly cropped version of Image:USS Pegasus.jpg. --OuroborosCobra talk 12:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC) Star Wreck images ;Image:Sw1 2.gif, Image:Sw2-7.jpg, Image:Sw3-8.jpg, Image:Sw3-11.jpg These are images that have been uploaded for use in an article on the non-canon fan made "Star Wreck", and article that is up for deletion. I have mixed feelings on having non-canon images at at all, it seems to go beyond the "short mention" we give fan works. I could understand having one good image, but none of these are good images, and the names are terrible as well. --OuroborosCobra talk 15:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC) *''Exterminate!!! --Six of Six ''Talk'' 07:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC) Eminiar copy.jpg ;Image:Eminiar copy.jpg This looks like a real world image that has had the label for Eminiar added. If that is the case, it is definitely non-canon. While the star is described as being near NGC 321, I doubt that this exact star near NGC 321 was said to be Eminiar. --OuroborosCobra talk 04:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC) * Delete! — THOR ''=/\='' 11:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC) Image:Pierre de Fermat.jpg ;Image:Pierre de Fermat.jpg: Taken from Wikipedia, but is not of Trek origin, nor does it possess any Trek relevance. --Alan del Beccio 16:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC) :Delete. Even if it wouldn't cause us any problems because of copyright, we still don't accept such images here., only images directly taken from the episodes and movies. --Jörg 16:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC) :Question: So the only images allowed are screenshots from episodes and movies? Did I miss this requirement in the Memory Alpha:Image use policy? -Humuhumunukunukuāpuaʻa 16:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC) ::This also is a canon policy issue. We want our materials, including images, to conform to canon. See Memory Alpha:Canon policy. --OuroborosCobra talk 16:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC) :::Thanks for the clarification. I'm a Wikipedia editor trying my hand at some Memory Alpha articles, so a lot of the nuances are new to me. I'm learning, so I appreciate your patience! - Humuhumunukunukuāpuaʻa 16:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC) Uniform images Image:2373.jpg, Image:2375.jpg, Image:2366.jpg, Image:2351.jpg, Image:2273.jpg, Image:2265-f.jpg, Image:2265.jpg, Image:2245.jpg Aside from being poorly named, in as much as they don't describe the image whatsoever, I suspect these come directly out of the Star Trek Encyclopedia, or rather here. --Alan del Beccio 07:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC) :I think they are from ST:Magazine, but none the less, scans. --Six of Six ''Talk'' 07:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC) ::They did come from Star Trek: the Magazine and are as posted on st-spike.org, but I don't see how that doesn't jibe with the image fair use policy. Plus, I need to see if I can reload them with image descriptions. I've never uploaded images before, and didn't know quite how it worked. Sorry if I screwed things up, just trying to help illustrate what pages of text seemed difficult to convey.--JYHASH 07:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC) If the Encyclopedia is the primary source of the material, then it does not fall within our copyright policy of "fair use". In this case, at least as far as what was taken from the Encyclopedia by Spike, those images are not "fair use" because *we* did not get permission from the authors/illustrators of the Encyclopedia to use those images. Other than that, I still prefer the use of actual screen caps for the sake of authenticity and aesthetics. --Alan del Beccio 08:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC) :::Fair-use for screen caps is justified by the fact that one frame of an hour-long episode is something like 1/90000 of the complete work. Images like the ones you are uploading are the complete work of someone else. Even if you argue that the whole st-spike.org is "the work", all of the images you have taken constitute a much larger portion of "the work", and fair-use would be hard to defend. "Spike said I could use them" does not qualify as a release. They must be released into the public domain by spike , released under the creative-commons 2.5/attribution/non-commerical license by spike , or he can maintain the copyright and specifically release them to be used on MA only . All of these require attribution to the source, which you did not provide. The fact that you modified the original images requires a release for that as well, although the modification of adding caption text directly to the image is not acceptable. The captions should be placed in the article. These images should all be deleted because of the caption text in the image, even if the proper description and license info is added. --Bp 08:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC) ::::I agree with all of the above - there seem to be copyright issues, and even if those are solved, we don't really want drawings where we could have screenshots. -- Cid Highwind 09:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC) ::::Not only is it that its not the whole works vs. 1/80730th of a whole work (assuming 45 minutes of content at 29.9 frames/second NTSC), the frame caps are also free-to-air, whereas the magazine and books are not. Fair use leans toward allowing free-to-air content to be used for informational purposes. Also, IIRC, Paramount has granted fan sites a wide copywriter birth in using the star trek name, logos, and screen caps (thats not to say granted permission, but they learned the hard way that geeks know a lot about the law too). The copyright holders of the books and magazines have not. In other words, CBS Corporation has a much smaller case agents MA than a book publisher does. and thats the reason for policy (as i see it atleast) --''Six of Six'' ''Talk'' Ω 11:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC) :::::If I recall correctly, fair use in the case of a book or magazine scan is applicable for a review of said book or magazine... which this is not. That's why we can use cover scans of books and magazines, and a very occasional interior scan: the article pages on those are considered reviews, as least for the purpose of fair use. -- Renegade54 12:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC) ::::::I'm not even sure of that, since damned near every book printed nowadays has the Oprah clause. "This book my not be copied in whole, or in part, except for the purposes of review." Thats not fair use, thats explicit permission. But alas, this has turned into a copyright discussion, and not about the deletion of the images, which, in and of itself is a copyright discussion, and a taste one as well. --''Six of Six'' ''Talk'' Ω 13:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC) :::::::It may also be authorized in some book copyrights, but not all. Also, no in all magazine copyrights. In that case, it falls under fair use. As for these images, DELETE. I'm not even sure this is the right place, should it they not have and be discussed at possible copyvios? --OuroborosCobra talk 13:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC) ::::::::© issues got added ontop of other lagit arguments. That wasnt the origional cause for deletion. --''Six of Six'' ''Talk'' Ω 13:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC) *'Delete.' I'm thinking these come from a RPG website, as some seem to be altered from the versions in the magazine/encyc/etc. I don't think the 2375 dress uniform had a belt. - AJ Halliwell 04:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC) Image:Castle.jpg ;Image:Castle.jpg: Uploaded without copyright disclaimer - not a screenshot, so potentially not fair use. If this gets replaced with a screenshot, that image should be uploaded using a better title, anyway. -- Cid Highwind 16:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC) Image:Warp factor chart old.png ;Image:Warp factor chart old.png: A chart showing the relation between warp factors and "normal speeds" - which is based solely on non-canon background information and on top of that, not really useful anyway. -- Cid Highwind 10:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC) *I seem to remember us deleting something similar to this... Delete. --OuroborosCobra talk 13:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC) *...And way too small. Delete! --''Six of Six'' ''Talk'' Ω 13:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC) Janus VI colony render.jpg ;Image:Janus VI colony render.jpg This image is a duplicate of the existing Image:Janus VI colony.jpg, and at the time of this post is also orphaned. In addition, this image is taken from Startrek.com, rather than being a screencap, which probably makes it a copyvio. --OuroborosCobra talk 16:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC) : (edited) It's not orphaned as I just updated the The Devil in the Dark page -- you have to account for some time in editing. ;) I didn't replace the existing one so as not to overwrite someone's work, as a courtesy (hence the "duplicate"), but the new image shows a bit more and in better detail. ... There are other images on this site from StarTrek.com, is this a problem? Screen captures are arguably a copyright violation UNLESS you consider it "fair use" practice in discussing the work. I would hope Paramount wouldn't deny MA fair use of their promotional images, as they generate publicity for their franchise. --Kojirovance 16:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC) Startrek.com images are not necessarily meant to be promotional. In addition, look at the discussions above for how screencaps count as fair use, and other images, say from books or websites, do not. Screencaps are a very small portion (one frame out of tens of thousands). Those other images you pointed out were uploaded today, and probably need to be deleted as well. --OuroborosCobra talk 16:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC) :Okay, fair enough. ;) Go ahead and revert The Devil in the Dark page, I'm not sure I have privileges to do that. Gorn starship renders ;Image:New-front-1-540x287.jpg and Image:New-rear-1-540x287.jpg These images were taken from Startrek.com, and therefore do not fall under "fair use". --OuroborosCobra talk 16:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)